Jeffrey, I finally got around to reading your review of le Fanu's book.But after seeing you twisted his words in your very first paragraph, I didn't want to read any further.

You wrote:"In 2000, James Le Fanu, a British physician and newspaper columnist, wrote a book entitledThe Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine, which, among other things, attacked theclaim that many diseases have a genetic basis. He wrote, “... genetics is not a particularlysignificant factor in human disease. This is scarcely surprising, as man would not be assuccessful a species as he is (many would argue too successful), were it not that naturalselection had over millions of years weeded out the unfit”... In 2000,then, it seemed—despite the faulty rationale for denying a genetic role in disease—that LeFanu accepted evolution and natural selection."

Let's see what Le Fanu wrote: "genetics is not a particularly significant factor in human disease." What is this saying? It's saying that it is a factor, just not a particularly significant one. You then paraphrase him, just fine, saying that he "attacked the claim that many diseases have a genetic basis." But then what do you say? How do you twist his words? You say he "den(ied) a genetic role in disease." Really now, is that what he said?

Saying "genetics is not a particularly significant factor in human disease" (i.e. it plays a limited role) contradicts "he denies a genetic role in disease." Until you recognize that, there's no need to look at his book.

So glad to see this blog. I got to page 50 of this supposedly wonderful book, and had found so many factual errors, twisted arguments and creationist copycat views that I put it down in disgust. There may be a lot we don't understand, but this is not the way to find any answers.